Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loretta Jones/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 23:43, 10 August 2010.

Loretta Jones

 * Nominator(s):  RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about a controversial fictional character. The article contains many referenced sources, backing up the claims and how the character affected the public over the subject of child murder. The character was also portrayed as a pole dancer, but she was used to change perception of the profression. I've tried to stay away from complicated wording, making it easy for everyone to read. I've also adressed all the layout during a GA review it once took. The article also contains discussion of character development, casting, reception. Masses of sources for fictional characters from serial drama's also are hard to come by, so the best was done in that respect. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give specific details of your oppose? Candidates should not have to indulge in a guessing game. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were to guess, I would say that the second non-free image in the body of the article is excessive and does not significantly aid readers' understanding per WP:NFCC. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that nominators shouldn't have to guess. It is the reviewer's job to state precise reasons for objection, not to talk in riddles. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the role of reviewers to assess the articles, and it is the obligation of nominators' to present articles in a state close to, or exceeding FA requirements, my effort with the review correlates with the effort put into meeting the WP:FA Criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I fix the references and remove the second image, would the chances of approval be likely? What is the view on the prose? RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The threshold for approval is here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I read through when It was at the GA stage, so I worked on those points then. With the image being removed it would meet the C3, then it is just an opinion on prose that is perhaps needed. I feel it meets. I'd also it would be refreshing for WP to feature this article, it would also engage readers once more with the issue of child murder in fiction, which from the article it's clear to see is a present issue in society. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC-instructions: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis original). Fasach Nua, there are legitimate NFCC failures in this article; why make your oppose unactionable by not reasonably articulating them?  How is anyone helped by this?  Эlcobbola  talk 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Ref 10: publisher information is formatted differently from other Digital Spy refs, e.g 1, 3, 6 etc
 * Ref 14: OK!, as a print source, require italicisation per MOS. Likewise ref 34 (The Daily Star)
 * Italicisation still required
 * Ref 15: The publisher of the TV.com website is CBS Interactive
 * Ref 19: Why is http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-broadcasting/hollyoaks-courts-controversy-with-child-killer-plot-200911256908/ a reliable encyclopedic source?
 * Refs 22 and 37: This website has closed down
 * Ref 23: "Female First" is a division of First Active Media Ltd
 * Ref 35: Why is http://babemag.com/Babe_news/436450/hollyoaks_hottie_melissa_walton_gets_axed.html a reliable encyclopedic source?

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How Do, cover media centric news for the North West of the UK, it's a reporting source, I've used it in articles previously and went to the realiable source notice board. Babe Mag, I used it for analysis of the character, nothing to sensational, they will often review fictional chaarcters... What is it's faults? I can repiar the other references, The website that closed down is a shame, must have happened last week, because I use it a often - so I'll remove them both. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All stated refs fixed, leaving 19 and 35 in the article for discussion. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the reliabilty issue, User:Ealdgyth, who has reviewed FAC sources for aeons, defines reliability thus: "To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated." She also points to Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches as a source for further advice on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How-Do removed, it's been proven as a good source via a discussion on the reliable source noticeboard, but removed for this FA. More discussion via Babe Magazine for a reception quote, if it is still deemed not notable enough I shall remove it straight away. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Babemag removed RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:LorettaJones.JPG - Image's purpose ("illustrate the subject of the article") is entirely redundant to File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg.  The character is clearly visual in both - two are thus not acceptable per NFCC#3A.
 * File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg - How does an image of two people standing convey "shows [sic] big storyline in the 2009 later quarter"? What knowledge is imparted that the prose does not (NFCC#1)?  What is the significant contribution to our understanding of the character (NFCC#8)?
 * The interplay of the images is complex. File:LorettaJones.JPG is unacceptable if File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg is present, but I don't believe the latter is at all necessary.  However, if File:Loretta and Chrissy Childkillers.jpg is removed and the no longer redundant File:LorettaJones.JPG retained, I'm concerned that what is merely a closely cropped headshot of a woman whose character has no meaningful or unique makeup/prosthesis/etc. could be considered replaceable by an image of the still-living actress (NFCC#1).  Is there perhaps an alternative scene that would actually have some meaningful understanding to convey and depict the character?  Эlcobbola  talk 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can get hold of an image where the character is in her alter ego appearance from earlier episodes, she was depicted as a pole dancer in earlier episodes and the chaarcter was tarted up for those scenes as interviews with the actress has explained.. Even if I do that though, I noticed you said there are a number NFCC failures within the article, so is everything else fine? Because I'll sort that as soon as possible. (other wise, it's worth noting how difficuilt gaining a free image of a British soap actress can be, as in the case of previous fictional character FA, Pauline Fowler, the article had the same NFCC issues but was promoted.. that featured 5 extra images, I wouldn't dream of using that amount of Non free content and trying for a FA) RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the plural "failures" is because there are two images, each with issues. I don't believe there to be issues in addition to those articulated above.  I think a reasonable case could be made for an image like the one you've described, but I'd obviously need to see it implemented to make a determination.  Note however that, unfortunate as it may be, the criterion that precludes non-free images of still living people (NFCC#1) only considers that a replacement could be obtained, not how easy or difficult that might be.  Эlcobbola  talk 14:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask why Pauline Fowler is a fellow fictional character with non-free images (6 head shots), a Featured Article. One rule for one, one rule for another., indeed.. (I've emailed a number of people for a free image, photographers who have an image of Melissa Walton) RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be featured, but that's not relevant to this FAC. 1) WP:OTHERSTUFF; 2) It did not receive an image review; 3) Wendy Richard is dead, Melissa Walton is not - see NFCC#1.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Running out of options here, because no replies as of yet. What about an article with no images for FA? RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter Evans (swimmer) - Promoted 15 July 2010. There are numerous others.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay that's sorted then, images now vacant from the article. :) RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola  talk 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support? RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to issues of time and expertise, I generally abstain from complete reviews, which precludes supporting nominations. I would note, however, that I believe the article is in need of a thorough copyedit, as issues include, among others, awkward phrasing (eg. "including facing"), unencyclopedic phrasing (e.g. the colloquial "axed" to mean "canceled"), inconsistencies with comma usage and tense, grammar issues, etc.  Эlcobbola  talk 18:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The prose fails criterion 1 (a). It is not well written, of excellent or professional standard.  Examples:
 * Despite this occupation, Jones has been portrayed out of conjunction with the blonde stereotype.
 * The character is most noted for the series intending to portray her as a child murderer trying to piece her life back together.
 * She also had a pole set up in her living room to carry on practicing.[3] Speaking of her research Walton stated: "I loved it. It's really good exercise. It's really good for toning. They didn't ask me to, but I did... I went and I had pole dancing classes. I had a pole put up in my living room." (repetitious)
 * On 8 June 2010 Walton filmed her final scenes with the serial along with two fellow cast members, Scare and Gerard McCarthy (who plays Kris Fisher).
 * After being axed by Marquess, he changed the character's direction and her persona changed.
 * When episodes that were intended to feature the storyline transmitted, they instead featured a selection of then "last minute" scenes. In these scenes, Hodgkiss portrays a new character, Caroline, who holds Loretta and Jake hostage.
 * In her exit final episodes Loretta had managed to convince everyone that Jake was mentally ill once more.
 * Later she goes on night out in The Loft nightclub and threatens Charlotte Lau (Amy Yamazaki) that she will kill her if she ever goes near Jake again, making viewers realise that Loretta had changed her personality and her behaviour since her absence. Loretta pretends she had Lukemia but Jake finds out the truth, ends their relationship.
 * She send messages from Jake's mobile phone and plants defaced pictures of her and Jake in his coat to make it look real.
 * These are just some of the more obvious examples of poor prose, below GA standard.  Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I concur with Jezhotwells' prose assessment above. Some more examples from reading a couple of sections:
 * "Jake later decides he doesn't want her, of this Walton states that:"
 * "Walton towards Loretta's exit that she was now a dangerous and deluded woman."
 * "…Channel 4 announced that it was axing the storyline due in part to Fergus's reaction to the storyline."
 * "When episodes that were intended to feature the storyline transmitted, they instead featured a selection of then "last minute" scenes." Sasata (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.